This project, My coins, as an art concept is very very complex since it is using reality and real life materials as if it is a medium I can mold to my will.
In my experience most good art carries such a "social complexity." It is one of the things that brings "depth" to the life of a work. As I hinted at earlier, art is not art without a reference to some shared context. A work like what you attempt here naturally carries a "heavy" reference.
I did not intended to make that clear right from the beginning, it would not be easy to get through with it to a well educated art community and I don't expect people here to get is as such.
Clearly! I worry, though, that this "baby steps" approach will obscure too much so early. I'd suggest worrying less about the explanations of the work, leave that to the art historians of the future, and focus instead on the presentation itself.
The only importance of keep stating the artistic quality of this work right here on the thread was for legal issues which of course where the first to be brought up. I will post and explain much more about my art as time comes..
You shouldn't worry about what the masses think about legalities, since their opinion on law doesn't change the law. Just because they misunderstand IP and IP law (not an uncommon trait, as most people are neither lawyers nor worked closely with lawyers on matters of IP use and re-use) doesn't mean that there is any actual impact the legal status of your art.
at the moment I do not expect people to buy my coins for believing in the quality of my art. In my NILIcoins thread I will very soon post picks ans info about my art.
I'm very much looking forward to it.
There is however one point every mathematician and code writer can understand better then most artists (though they too use that faculty all the time). When a writer tell you that his fictional characters are the ones writing the story it is because just like in math, once you set the underline rules by which this character is operating, every situation you present to your character, it will act with in character according the first rules you set for it. Unless it is out of character and then you as the writer have to justify that. Which means that you present the reader with a good proof which explains that. this justification for the out-of-character behaviour is the things that moves the story along and makes it interesting.
Asimov's rules of science fiction spring immediately to mind, but this is a general sentiment expressed by authors through all of history, so you're in good company here. A story is, of course, an iterative bifurcation of "what could be" with each iteration dependent on the branching of each prior iteration. This is one of those things from our PMs that I "breezed past because I consider it so very fundamental that it almost goes without saying."
Stop worrying and learn to love the bomb. Don't let the bifurcation of your story get "held up" on the first few iterations of the plot development simply because a few people here are already failing in keeping up with the plot. Let the story unfold, and the true critics (the ones who matter anyway) will be able to follow the story-line just fine. In the end, history will have little difficulty in understanding the realization of your justification.
This is assuming that you remain justified, of course. This is critical, your story must be molded within the legal constraints. I don't think this will be so "nearly impossible" as these few critics (who have clearly lost the plot already?) might think. I don't even think it will be that hard. The Berne Convention really is quite cut-and-dry, and easy to follow.
Again, though, you are not *doing* it just yet. You've introduced the premise of your plot, but we're still all waiting to see the story, itself, unfold. I can understand the hesitation in the face of the inevitable criticism and misunderstandings, but "the debate" about your story's justification is futile from both sides until the story is actually begun to be told! (This is precisely why you almost certainly won't see a C&D quite yet. Those teams of lawyers, necessarily being smart folk to work for such prominent companies, certainly understand that they can't hope to argue the justification of the story before the story really begins this path through the bifurcation!)
I'm rooting for you and I'm sure that I'm not alone despite being, so far, the only one to root for you publicly.
I
really want to see your work of art be a work of art. If (when) it is, it should shape up to be an awesome one.